I still think that a 30kg microsat is a little optimistic for the Lynx MkII unless they use a high performance liquid rocket (instead of the much more likely solids). Scout G's 2nd, 3rd, and 4th stages (we're saying the Lynx acts as the first stage, which is probably optimistic) and payload add together to a mass of 6300kg for a payload of 210kg. For a 650kg rocket, proportionally that would leave only 22kg of payload, and that's not counting the really significant "minimum-gauge"-type issues you'd have with a rocket that small. But with a high-performance liquid rocket engine, perhaps even a methane or hydrogen one (hydrogen pretty unlikely, but they're working on it for ULA), they may well get to a 30kg microsatellite, if minimum-gauge issues don't kill them (i.e. where do you get aerospace-weight, LOx-compatible valves of that size?).

Sorry for the slightly-offtopicness of this post.

Logged

Chris Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Another plane that probably could be had for low cost is the F-111 it has a large payload and a max speed of mach 2.5.

Anything flown on an F-111 center line will have to be stored internally, the F-111 does not have the necessary ground clearance to fly external stores on the center line. If stored externally it would have to be carried off center on one of the wings.

Yah it lacks an external center line mount but the wing hard points can carry about 2300kg each which should still be enough for a good sized micro launcher and there is good ground clearance as shown in this pic.

With a rocket sized for the hard points it should be capable of putting 50 to 80kg into orbit.

ISP will be a huge driver here and a high performance liquid rocket such as NOFBX will yeild much better numbers then a solid.

Only if the NOFBX rocket is pump-fed would it be much higher performance than a solid (seems dangerous to me).

Logged

Chris Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

I still think that a 30kg microsat is a little optimistic for the Lynx MkII unless they use a high performance liquid rocket (instead of the much more likely solids).

You think solids would be likely with the XCOR crowd? You don't know them very well...

~Jon

Ah, true...

Logged

Chris Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

The customer interested in operationally responsive capability might be willing to support this effort even without purchasing any launches. Somewhat like EELV, it is partially the capability to launch which is of value.

My back of the envelope suggests that a solid motor two stage air-launched rocket weighing 2 tonnes using optimized stage masses could lift perhaps 50 kg to 400 km LEO. This with existing mass ratios and ISP more conservative than Maj Lawrence's assumptions.

GO wants to use existing motors, which would likely mean less-than-optimal results using more than two stages, but still good for 30 kg.

Compare with state of the art ground launch, 1956-58-ish. The Vanguard rocket weighed about 10 tonnes but could only lift 23 kg into LEO. Or compare with Japan's rail-launched (unguided initial stages) Lambda 4S, circa 1966, which weighed 9.2 tonnes (four stages) and could orbit 56 kg.

So, this thing looks do-able. Cost is, of course, the key. Maj. Lawrence suggested that it might be possible to orbit a small payload for roughly the same as it costs to use certain GPS guided bombs or missiles.

It seems to miss both payload mass requirement (100 lbm) and cost target ($1M or less).

The GO-2 section does mention the possibility of future performance upgrades, and only 15 kg or so more is needed, so there's that. As for the cost, I'm not sure I can imagine anyone making the $1 million per launch mark. It's a nice goal, but let's be realistic.

It seems to miss both payload mass requirement (100 lbm) and cost target ($1M or less).

The GO-2 section does mention the possibility of future performance upgrades, and only 15 kg or so more is needed, so there's that. As for the cost, I'm not sure I can imagine anyone making the $1 million per launch mark. It's a nice goal, but let's be realistic.

- Ed Kyle

A good way to lose a proposal submitted to even DARPA is to begin by saying I can't achieve a stated requirement. From the Q&A for ALASA, Dec 1, 2011:

Q11: How strict is the $1M total cost per flight goal?

A11: The $1M per flight cost is a firm requirement, and it is incumbent on the proposer to determine how that will be achieved. The BAA will be amended to clarify the $1M per flight cost is a firm requirement.

I like those sort of goals... They seem just out of reach. If it was a "practical" goal, then it wouldn't be a good goal for a prize-type contest. It's good for stretching the bounds of what is then understood as "practical."

$1 million is a good goal. They don't need just another Scout or Minotaur or Falcon 1 launch vehicle, they want something considerably cheaper. And a $1 million per launch for a microsatellite of ~50kg is pretty enabling for small-business-scale (and even concerted hobbyist/amateur group) projects, perhaps even cheaper than flying as a secondary payload. Actually, that brings up a good question:

Exactly how much does it typically cost for a 100lbm microsatellite to launch as a secondary payload?

Logged

Chris Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

I like those sort of goals... They seem just out of reach. If it was a "practical" goal, then it wouldn't be a good goal for a prize-type contest. It's good for stretching the bounds of what is then understood as "practical."

$1 million is a good goal. They don't need just another Scout or Minotaur or Falcon 1 launch vehicle, they want something considerably cheaper. And a $1 million per launch for a microsatellite of ~50kg is pretty enabling for small-business-scale (and even concerted hobbyist/amateur group) projects, perhaps even cheaper than flying as a secondary payload. Actually, that brings up a good question:

Exactly how much does it typically cost for a 100lbm microsatellite to launch as a secondary payload?

Generation Orbit Launch Services, Inc. (GO) is pleased to welcome Mr. Zack Rubin to the team as the Lead Engineer of the Engineering Team’s Structures Division. Mr. Rubin will be responsible for leading the design, prototyping, integration and testing of flight structures, mechanisms, and separation systems for the GOLauncher family of vehicles. Mr. Rubin began his position with GO in early August.

Previously, he worked as a Structures Engineer and Dynamic Environments Engineer at SpaceX. Mr. Rubin contributed flight hardware design and analysis to Falcon 1, Falcon 9 v1.0 and v1.1, Grasshopper, Falcon Heavy and Dragon. He developed in-house shock testing facilities for rapid hardware qualification, and was also responsible for dynamic environments, instrumentation and sound suppression modifications at the Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg launch pads and the McGregor Texas test site. Mr. Rubin holds a Master of Science in Aerospace Engineering focused from California Institute of Technology, and a Bachelor of Science in Engineering from Harvey Mudd College.

Mr. Rubin commented on the start of his tenure at GO. “Dedication to creating new technology for a rapidly evolving aerospace market is what sets companies like GO apart. We are going to build and fly amazing hardware and I am so happy to have a contributing role.”

“Through his hands-on experience as a Responsible Engineer on multiple projects, Zack has demonstrated not only his engineering skills, but also his leadership characteristics,” commented GO’s COO A.J. Piplica. “We are confident in his abilities to make him a huge impact on our company’s success.”

Generation Orbit Launch Services, Inc. (GO) has been awarded a Phase I Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) contract from the Air Force Research Laboratory, Aerospace Systems Directorate (AFRL/RQ) for development of a GOLauncher 1, a single-stage air launched liquid rocket vehicle designed to fly suppressed trajectories for hypersonic flight research applications. Booster systems capable of flying suppressed trajectories increase flexibility for experimental payloads to high Mach number, high dynamic pressure test environments. The nine-month effort worth $150,000 will focus on requirements definition, configuration trade studies, and trajectory design space exploration.

“Rooted in the success of the HIFiRE program’s philosophy, we believe GOLauncher 1 will provide longer duration testing with the flexibility to maximize accessibility to flight conditions of interest to the hypersonic research and development community at an affordable cost,” commented A.J. Piplica, the Principal Investigator on the effort. “Generation Orbit’s solution to improving access to test windows of interest for hypersonic flight testing calls for a novel air launched liquid rocket booster system specifically designed for flying suppressed trajectories. We expect a large amount of traceability, in terms of both technology and operations, between GOLauncher 1 and the GOLauncher family.”

AFRL project manager, Barry Hellman, also commented on the program. “As the Air Force works toward next-generation hypersonic systems, flexible and affordable flight testing stands as a key enabler for technology development and operational demonstrations. The combination of air launch and liquid-fueled rockets has the potential to open the diversity of trajectories we can fly.”

Atlanta-based Generation Orbit Launch Services, Inc. (GO) focuses on providing fast, flexible, and dedicated space transportation services for small payloads. GOLauncher 2 supplies microsatellite, nanosatellite, and CubeSat customers with reliable and affordable access to space. The unique air launch approach developed by GO and its development partners offers flexible launch capabilities, poised to reduce fixed infrastructure needs, launch costs, and the time from contract signature to launch. Air launch system experience at GO dates back over 10 years, providing a distinct advantage throughout the design and analysis process. As a systems integrator, GO compiles multiple aspects of the launch architecture to provide a streamlined service to scientists, researchers, and industry customers alike.

Generation Orbit Launch Services, Inc. (GO) is pleased to announce the award of a Follow-On Phase II SBIR (Small Business Innovative Research) contract from the Air Force Research Laboratory, Aerospace Systems Directorate, High Speed Systems Division (AFRL/RQH) for development and flight testing of the GOLauncher 1 (GO1). The single stage liquid rocket, launched from a Gulfstream III business jet, will conduct its inaugural flight test in 2019, reaching Mach 6 within the atmospher

Tweets from Jeff Foust[/url]:AJ Piplica, Generation Orbit: still interested in doing air-launch for smallsats down the road; focus for now is hypersonics work.Piplica: planning captive carry tests of GO1 test article on a Gulfstream III at NASA Armstrong next month.Piplica: flight tests of GO1 scheduled for 1st quarter of 2019, flying out of Cecil Field spaceport in Jacksonville, Fla.

Chris Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0